Didn't you already have your questions answered here? https://christisking.cc/threads/problems-coming-to-terms-with-early-christianity.1083/#post-70968
2025 Bible Study Group
- Thread starter Bizet
- Start date
Didn't you already have your questions answered here? https://christisking.cc/threads/problems-coming-to-terms-with-early-christianity.1083/#post-70968
John 1
The Pharisees ask John the Baptist about his ministry. They ask him if he is one of the three eschatological figures named in the Old Testament. Christ would come to usher in the Messianic Age. Elijah would come before the day of the Lord. The Prophet is whom Moses prophesied about before he died in Deuteronomy. Though John denies that he is Elijah, Jesus later confirms to the Apostles that John the Baptist fulfills the office of Elijah. Christ and the Prophet are both the same figure, namely Jesus.
John the Baptist recognizes Jesus as the Son of God. Later in the chapter, one of the disciples Nathaniel also identifies Jesus as the Son of God. Liberal scholarship has a certain disdain for John's Gospel because of it's high Christology. They think they are on to something when they say that John is not unbiased about who he believes Jesus is. This is no great discovery, for even towards the end of this Gospel, John makes his authorial intent known: these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
Last edited:
Iakobos
Orthodox
Both of the labels "Judaism" and "Christianity" are anachronistic, because the Jews of the time are totally different from the modern notion of Judaism, and the earliest followers of Christ also were little akin to huge swaths of modern Christianity.
Second temple-era Jews viewed themselves as worshippers of the one true God, the Creator, the God of Isaac, Abraham and Jacob, followers of the Law, awaiting the promised messiah. The split occurred at Christ's arrival, with Jews (& Gentiles) who accepted Christ as the messiah becoming followers of Him and Christians. Those who rejected Christ are the forefathers of what became modern Judaism.
So it doesn't make sense to state it as "the earliest version of Christianity is Judaism," this is semantically incoherent to the reality of the times. What one could say is that the earliest Christians, were the righteous Jews who knew God (and therefore recognized Christ), and they worshipped in the same way that they had traditionally worshipped with the addition of celebrating the Eucharist. I'm not sure how this would be problematic for Orthodox or Roman Catholics? I'm trying to see your logic, are you trying to say that associating with the earliest church is bad because earliest church = Judaism = Jews = bad? If so I hope the above clarifies.
While I'm sure there's a fair extent of mystery to why certain were chosen, 12 is a significant Biblical number as seen in the sons of Jacob. But Christ did have many more followers than 12, they were the closest to Him however.
One aspect that Fr. Stephen de Young points out in his Gospel study series is that it seem the more pious and Godfearing a person is, the quicker they are to recognize Christ. Whereas those with hardened hearts doubt, demand miracles and scoff.
---
John 1 is one of my favorite chapters in the Bible. I particularly like Nathanael asking "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?", to me it plays like a sarcastic joke, as if someone told you the Messiah came from Detroit. And of course the beginning is just incredible.
John 2
The chapter has two episodes: Jesus' first miracle at the wedding in Cana and Jesus driving the money changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem. The first an act of Grace, the second an act of Wrath.
The Resurrection is the proof of Jesus's authority over all things.
The chapter has two episodes: Jesus' first miracle at the wedding in Cana and Jesus driving the money changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem. The first an act of Grace, the second an act of Wrath.
Jesus routinely says "My hour is not yet come" throughout this Gospel. Jesus was always looking forward to His hour of death. All of His ministry would be fulfilled in the Crucifixion. I believe that John also wants to portray Jesus as the true Bridegroom. Wedding celebrations were held in high regard, and it was the bridegroom's responsibility to prove that he was capable of taking care of his wife and family. In this scenario, the wine running out speaks to the bridegrooms lack of capability, but Jesus is able to account for that deficiency, in this case by turning the water into wine.
After Jesus drove the merchants out of the Temple, the Jews challenged His authority. I particularly love verses 21 and 22 because they show John's own commentary of the events, He interprets the events for us. This is why I can believe that Scripture interprets Scripture. Jesus's answer is that His resurrection will be the proof that vindicates His authority, which we saw Paul elucidate on back in Romans, and in Paul's public preaching in Acts 17: God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He determined, having furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead.
The Resurrection is the proof of Jesus's authority over all things.
John 2
Jesus turns the water into wine and then turns the tables at the jewish temple and gets mad that they are using it to make money.
Analysis:
2 of the most talked about sections of the New Testament. The wine part, often joked about. Wouldn't you want water to be turned into wine? And then the temples part was alawys discussed going back to my highschool days as an example of Jesus losing his temper and to show he wasn't always calm. He wasn't perfect (that's how they taught us in school anyway but I understand from a theological perspective we should think otherwise). He had anger in this moment. It raises the question is it ok to retaliate or have an outburst if the situation warrants it?
We get to see different sides of Jesus here - one that he can perform miracles and the other is that he puts moral purity at the center and reacts accordingly if he does not see this. Jesus, always seen to be showing forgiveness and reminding us not to judge others unless we are perfect, has no time for these dealers in the temple.
Considering this is the only time Jesus acts this way or with this type of emotion that seems to us human anger (which I always find tricky to undestand as losing temper might be seen as a negative)...is righteous losing of temper OK?...anyway considering that I wonder does it mean the temple selling of goods is the worst of all sins? Since Jesus does not react like this even when being betrayed to his death later which is in a sense even worse.
Jesus turns the water into wine and then turns the tables at the jewish temple and gets mad that they are using it to make money.
Analysis:
2 of the most talked about sections of the New Testament. The wine part, often joked about. Wouldn't you want water to be turned into wine? And then the temples part was alawys discussed going back to my highschool days as an example of Jesus losing his temper and to show he wasn't always calm. He wasn't perfect (that's how they taught us in school anyway but I understand from a theological perspective we should think otherwise). He had anger in this moment. It raises the question is it ok to retaliate or have an outburst if the situation warrants it?
We get to see different sides of Jesus here - one that he can perform miracles and the other is that he puts moral purity at the center and reacts accordingly if he does not see this. Jesus, always seen to be showing forgiveness and reminding us not to judge others unless we are perfect, has no time for these dealers in the temple.
Considering this is the only time Jesus acts this way or with this type of emotion that seems to us human anger (which I always find tricky to undestand as losing temper might be seen as a negative)...is righteous losing of temper OK?...anyway considering that I wonder does it mean the temple selling of goods is the worst of all sins? Since Jesus does not react like this even when being betrayed to his death later which is in a sense even worse.
He threw out the merchants and the money lenders from his temple, because he did not want his temple to be a den of thieves.
Is this a parable, perhaps?
Iakobos
Orthodox
The interpretation of Christ "losing his temper" isn't borne out by the text. One who loses their temper, loses control over their emotions and is driven by base passions. In fact, Christ's emotions are not described at all in this text. What Christ is doing is _rebuking_ the moneychangers and shutting down their operations. And deservedly so. Far be it from us to describe this as being "imperfect." Thinking so reflects the heresy of "nice guy hippie Jesus," which has never been the way He is understood by Christians nor is it an accurate characterization of God.
Rebuking is warranted and righteous in the correct circumstances. Losing one's temper is more akin to being a child and having a tantrum.
The moneychangers are extorting and profiteering off those who desire to worship God, in what is intended to be the most holy place on earth in those times. In other words, they are worshipping mammon in what is meant to be the house of God's worship. This is breaking the greatest commandment: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
Yes, twice. Reading John 2 and Matthew 21 side by side will show that they are separate accounts:
https://www.gotquestions.org/temple-cleanse.html
I never knew Jesus cleared out the money changers from the temple twice! I'm more familiar with the other records, and I had always understood this was one of the events near the end of his earthly ministry before the crucifixion. I agree a number of the details are different, both time and circumstances.
I'm surprised there wasn't some serious blowback for this earlier incident.